Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 9th Jan 2007 20:47 UTC, submitted by ciaran
GNU, GPL, Open Source "The following is a transcript of a lecture given by Richard Stallman in Zagreb (Croatia/Hrvatska) on March 9th 2006. The lecture was given in English. Richard Stallman launched the GNU project in 1983, and with it the Free Software movement. Stallman is the president of FSF - a sister organisation of FSFE. Transcription of this presentation was undertaken by Ciarán O'Riordan."
Thread beginning with comment 200770
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
by Bounty on Thu 11th Jan 2007 18:26 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: SECRET"
Member since:

rajj This is more of the kind of propaganda like talk.
you claim I didn't read any of the topic... neat. how do you know? Also I didn't say anything about the BSD license, guess you won that argument.

"Freedom zero is the freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose. -Stallman"

so if I have the binary, I can't run the program as I wish.... for any purpose? how is the source even relavant to Freedom zero?

Freedom zero "Freedom zero is necessary for a completely different reason........ They restrict how much you can run the program or when, or how, or for what jobs, for what purpose. -stallman"

so now it's my turn. " bothered to read any of the material about this topic? "

Reply Parent Score: 2

by rajj on Thu 11th Jan 2007 18:38 in reply to "RE[5]: SECRET"
rajj Member since:

No, you can't run the program for any purpose if you do not have access to the source. One obvious example is needing to run the program on different hardware or even a different operating system on the same hardware. In the grand scheme of things, if you have access to the source code, then restrictions cannot be placed on how or when you can run the software. The other freedoms merely enforce the first one.

Reply Parent Score: 1

by Bounty on Thu 11th Jan 2007 18:54 in reply to "RE[6]: SECRET"
Bounty Member since:

if I write a program and give you the binary, and say "do whatever you want with it" It's free. That literally means you can do ANYTHING you want with it.

Maybe you don't have the skills to dis-assemble it and make it play mp3's... but it's no different than when I look at the source code for Emacs, I can't make it play mp3's either... especially not on a PS3.

My binary is still more free than Emacs. You can hack mine and sell it.

Reply Parent Score: 1

by Valhalla on Thu 11th Jan 2007 23:00 in reply to "RE[5]: SECRET"
Valhalla Member since:

Bounty wrote:
"so if I have the binary, I can't run the program as I wish.... for any purpose? how is the source even relavant to Freedom zero?"

because you can make changes to the program if it does not work the way you want it to. in order to efficiently make changes, you need the source code.

your logic dictates that free beer is not free, unless you also get the keys to the refinery and make your own beer that you charge money for.

so, now for my beer analogy:

my definition of free beer is that I can drink it for free (use it).

an extra bonus is if someone gives me the recipe so I can change it to better suit my taste (change it).

the obligation I have, is if later on, I decide to hand out beer to others, I am obliged to give out the recipe if they should want it, so that they too can make the same beer and change it to suit their tastes.

under GPL you are free to use the program. you are free to make changes to the program. if you make changes and distribute them, you are obligated to provide the source code so that others can have the same rights that you yourself enjoyed.

if giving the same rights to others that you yourself recieved is not 'free' to you, then GPL is indeed not your licence of choice.

Reply Parent Score: 2